Where did L Ron steal Xenu from?

[nozeno]

Yeah - with the sensitivity jacked up - not the same as an LFBD on a hot item. And, even if you are exceptionally good at imagining things that read big, it sure has to cause you to ask just what these galvanic skin responses to thoughts are actually all about - or ought to.

Nick

I imagine I shouldn't have listened to my friends when they said "hey lets go down to DC and check out Scientology." I also imagine I shouldn't have joined staff, then I wouldn't be spending so much time here and still untangling myself. So maybe I'm not so good at imagining after all.

 

[nozeno]

Where did the topics for "imagining" come from? Did you think them up, or were they random things that were the next item in the list?

For example, there's an e-meter drill where you try and produce needle reactions by thinking of various categories of items (loss, betrayal etc.). The item is given as a general one, and one thinks of specific instances in one's own experience where one suffered a loss etc.

What I mean by items on a list is random specific items like "a big green animal; a grey ghost; a cube-shaped building" as opposed to the vague items above.

I would expect it to be relatively easy to get needle reactions by "imagining" items that have charged incidents underlying them, even if such are uninspected, but not at all easy to get reads with more specific items that one does not choose oneself.

Again, imagining a "sharp pink toy" all by oneself without hint or suggestion from another where one has free rein to pick anything is not the same as plucking the item "sharp pink toy" out of thin air (and possibly one's own past) and giving it to another to imagine.

It is also possible to move the meter needle (and TA) by postulate; something people sometimes do to show off.

Paul

You've given this way more thought than I did when monkeying around with her meter. There was no listing involved. Even while on staff I was capable of thinking things up on my own, at least for a little while.

How about "a sharp pink toy" jabbed in my eye? Or yours? No...you seem like a nice old fart. I take it back.

 

[lionheart]

Yeah - with the sensitivity jacked up - not the same as an LFBD on a hot item. And, even if you are exceptionally good at imagining things that read big, it sure has to cause you to ask just what these galvanic skin responses to thoughts are actually all about - or ought to.

Nick

On the higher levels beyond "Clear", Ron has created a pc who can "mock up" anything, including mocking up charge. It was very common to find clears and those close to it who could get LFBDs on mock-ups, protest, erasure by inspecton, anything really.

LRH even claimed that that is what his tech created - a pc who could mock up anything.

What he then did was suggest hitherto hidden and unknown sources of charge in the PreOT. Of course the PreOT can easily agree with this and mock up the charge and the LFBD.

Thus his suggestion/evaluation is "proved correct" by the e-meter which is being used as a truth detector". That was LRH's magic trick.

 

[lionheart]

Regarding the subject of "charge", Ron even said exactly what the nature of "the solution looking for a problem" was. He even told us what his scam was.

He defined auditing as the auditor asking a question which "restimulated" some charge in the PC. The auditor then gets the PC to look into his mind to recover the source of this charge, at which point the charge will erase!

Like all great magicians, he used misdirection and suggestion to hide what was really taking place.

This deliberate "restimultion" of the PC reached its height with his secret, dangerous, confidential, OTIII.

He never let his disciples consider the possibility that it was in fact he himself who was putting the charge there for his wonderful tech to discharge!

Huh? With regard to OT3, fair enough.

But HF is talking about all auditing, is he not? Is this your position too with regard to all auditing, LH?

Paul

Well, obviously things are never entirely black & white. I was simply reminding us all and maybe letting HF know that LRH did say auditing was the action of the auditor restimulating the PC... etc.

Some specifics -

• repeater technique in Book One auditing
• repetitive commands such as objectives
• asking Earlier Similar when the PC is not aware of one
• prepared lists of possible "hot items"
• prepared lists of overts
• the obvious ones like R6EW, CC, OTII, OTIII

Basically anything in Scn that is suggestion/evaluation.

There are other more marginal eaxamples. The whole subject of "charge" is a complcated one and my intention is simply to pose the idea that it might not be exactly how LRH presented it to us.

You also have to add in the suggestiveness of Scn, from LRH's works and peer pressure from fellow Scns. These are all capable of creating the charge in the PC, which the tech then "discharges"!

It is a simple magic trick that psychologcal magicians like Derren Brown use to great effect.

The definition of charge that I like is "an attempt to protest, stop, change, resist or aquire something".

Ron's definition is, in the way he applied it, more like "anything that has an effect on the PC". This "effect" is measured as a read on the meter. But that is not actually, as tech takes this to mean, a reason to audit it.

BPC is different and does seem to be "charge" missed. Prepared correction lists and the meter do seem good at handling this BPC. But even there, some lists include some gross evaluations that easily create an effect on the PC.

I believe the only solution to this problem is to only audit what the PC originates as wanting to handle. By definition these will be things that the PC is trying to "protest, stop, change, resist or aquire" otherwise he wouldn't originate them.

This is what people like Mike Goldstein do. It is certainly better than Ron's technique of deliberately "restimulating" the PC in order to handle it!

 

[lionheart]

You believe other methods are faster etc. I havn't really tried others so really can't comment. Similarly you havn't tried scn/dn auditing, so your comments should be taken with a pinch of salt or something. Its not an expert view anyway.

You may wish to see the FZ success stories thread
here. These are peoples experience of auditing on
more or less any part of the " bridge". They are people I know, at least for some time, usually years on our FZ forums. I know those who deliver the services. These stories are pure data. Not made up as COS has done at times.

They prove anything? Probably not. They are some data though.

Again I say the bottom line is does the tech work.

It seems clear it works for some, at least sometime.

Terril, I have 10 years experience of succcessfully auditing and C/sing standard Hubbard tech and have found since my declare that there are indeed methods that are faster, simpler, easier. (some mystical practices, Sedona Method, Idenics, Headlessness, Holosync). There are also many practices that don't seem to work.

Of course as regards myself, I cannot separate the gains I've got from these methods with the preparation I received from my gains with Scn auditing. I have no idea how I would have got on with these methods without my earlier experience with Scn tech.

I have seen many people with no experience of Scn get great benefit from other methodologies. I have met a few people who are far more enlightened than I ever met in Scn. So that is some objective evidence that I've observed.

What I would say is that Scn tends to be much more intensive than the above practices (they are not cults after all! :wink2: ). I would say that I have observed many people play at some of these other practices and consequently they had only limited success.

Of course one can say that that could be exactly as it should be. People's path/experience is whatever it should be.

The intensity of practice seems to be a factor as regards the success of the methodology whether it be Scn or another practice. In such cases cult awareness needs to be on full alert!

For myself I have found a significant divergence between Scn and these other practices. For this reason I would advise caution for anyone doing Scn in any of its forms.

The divergence can be identifed as "being cause" as opposed to "being". Scn stresses or aims for "being cause", the other workable methodologies focus on simply "being" which implies neither cause nor effect.

A left-hand path magician like Ron would say this dichotomy is left-hand vs right-hand path.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thanks, LH.

I see suggestiveness as playing a variable role. Glancing over a few correction lists and wondering if any of them apply is not the same as being told you have out-int and one of the Int buttons MUST read on you and assessing over and over until one does. That's an example. I don't even know if it is a real example.

Like Nick, I found very little in hundreds of hours of Dianetics R3R that matched up with History of Man. In the little between-lives stuff I ran I found nothing remotely similar to the Marcab Between-Lives Implant as described in the Between-Lives Implant SHSBC tape and the 1963 HCOB in the 1991 Tech Volumes. And I would have liked to find stuff like this!

As I've said before, OT2 includes many general items that would form part of anyone's whole-track, and that they read does not mean that the theory of OT2 is correct. Similarly, that "things" in one's immediate space read when attention is placed on them, then read a few more times and F/N when further attention is placed on them does not mean that any of the theory of OT3 is correct, merely that there are "things" in one's immediate space that cause those meter phenomena when interacted with.

Hubbard covers his theory of charge well in the two 1963 Time-Track HCOBs.

One of my favourite ideas of charge is described in this thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1129

Paul

 

[lionheart]

Thanks, LH.

I see suggestiveness as playing a variable role. Glancing over a few correction lists and wondering if any of them apply is not the same as being told you have out-int and one of the Int buttons MUST read on you and assessing over and over until one does. That's an example. I don't even know if it is a real example.

Like Nick, I found very little in hundreds of hours of Dianetics R3R that matched up with History of Man. In the little between-lives stuff I ran I found nothing remotely similar to the Marcab Between-Lives Implant as described in the Between-Lives Implant SHSBC tape and the 1963 HCOB in the 1991 Tech Volumes. And I would have liked to find stuff like this!

As I've said before, OT2 includes many general items that would form part of anyone's whole-track, and that they read does not mean that the theory of OT2 is correct. Similarly, that "things" in one's immediate space read when attention is placed on them, then read a few more times and F/N when further attention is placed on them does not mean that any of the theory of OT3 is correct, merely that there are "things" in one's immediate space that cause those meter phenomena when interacted with.

Hubbard covers his theory of charge well in the two 1963 Time-Track HCOBs.

One of my favourite ideas of charge is described in this thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1129

Paul

So long as people, when they leave the CofS, re-examine what Ron told them, I have no argument with them. Nobody has to agree with my conclusions. I just post them to encourage people to look newly. This was the main thing that LRH prevented us from doing.

I know you do this Paul, so if we don't entirely agree with our conclusions - well that is as it should be, isn't it?

If someone trots out an LRH datum, I post a counter explanation just to open up the possibility that LRH may not have been correct or may even have had a hidden agenda.

I like to post as complete a counter argument as possible to help illustrate that LRH's indoctrination could be just plain wrong!

As regards R3R auditing and suggestion, yes many of my PCs didn't run HOM and implant stuff, but quite a few did. Interestingly, those who did, appeared to often make the most case gain. For this reason, as an auditor, I always wanted the PC to contact such stuff. Now, over thirty years later I ask myself why this apparent case gain might have been.

Maybe now you can use your robot (I confess I'm not familiar enough with it to know if this is possible) to run some juicy implants and space opera to see what happens!

The popular culture at the time, as well as Ron's suggestions/evaluations was ripe with this sort of material. I think Dart wanted us to look at the influence that the media and culture might have had upon the content of past-life incidents.

It's also significant that it is not only Scn that seems to have a correlation between popular culture and subjective experience. If you read older Rosicrucian or Theosophical accounts of mystical visions, you find that they include concepts and images parallel to the popular culture of the time and the current level of technology .

So a hundred years ago mystical visions (eg A E's "Candle of Vision") involved technologies of Newtonian physics. Candle of Vision includes some of the most beautiful mystical images that I've ever read, by the way, stunning! Today mystical visions may involve quantum theory and parallel universe concepts. Five hundred years ago they may have been visions of alchemical concepts and symbols.

Why would this be?

OTIII is full of 1950's and 1960's sci-fi ideas and depends on 1960's technologies like spaceships looking like aeorplanes and nuclear explosions.

If Ron were to penetrate the "wall of fire" newly today, I wonder if the story might involve dark matter, worm-holes, lasers and quantum theory of cause and effect?

If he had penetrated it an the seventeenth century, I don't suppose nuclear explosions would have been involved! Rather it would more likely involve rosicrucian concepts of a battle of the elements and souls being put into a crucible of fire to transmute them into lead.

Suggestion has to have a source and a framework of reality upon which to build. I contend that in Scn the source of the suggestion was LRH and he used current scientific and sci-fi realities as his framework.

 

[Dulloldfart]

As regards R3R auditing and suggestion, yes many of my PCs didn't run HOM and implant stuff, but quite a few did. Interestingly, those who did, appeared to often make the most case gain. For this reason, as an auditor, I always wanted the PC to contact such stuff. Now, over thirty years later I ask myself why this apparent case gain might have been.

Maybe now you can use your robot (I confess I'm not familiar enough with it to know if this is possible) to run some juicy implants and space opera to see what happens!
...
Suggestion has to have a source and a framework of reality upon which to build. I contend that in Scn the source of the suggestion was LRH and he used current scientific and sci-fi realities as his framework.

Thanks for reply. That's an interesting point re the most apparently suggestible pcs getting the most case gain. Case gain in terms of TA action, or some other measure? Alan posted a couple of months ago on the phenomenon of a pc blowing the TA up and down but not actually as-ising anything. That might apply here.

Someone familiar with auditing, and familiar with my Robot and Rub & Yawn procedure, could use it to address anything they wished. If one is following the procedure properly, though, the process being run would not be continued longer than a minute if nothing was physically discharging. That is my intended protection against a pc running an uncharged or flattened item for very long. I have addressed various whole-track items with it, and it works just fine, but only if the item is charged. The tacit C/S is to run whatever your attention is on most, but it is possible to run a session with an arbitrarily-C/S'd item as long as the ruds are in. Whether or not the item runs depends on whether it is charged and accessible to the pc at that point in time. For best case gain, I would go with running what the pc has attention on and wants to run, rather than some arbitrary search for juicy whole-track stuff. But if someone is wondering about something or other and wants to do a bit of research, well, go for it--I do! What I like about my Rub & Yawn procedure is that an untrained person can see if the topic is charged and discharging or not, so it keeps in the tech about not running uncharged items and running a process only until the point where change is coming off and no further.

I agree re the framework. I remember a few years ago running some pre-MEST incident in R3X and describing the scene in terms of a "template universe", and I had just been studying about templates in Microsoft Word and it all fitted together perfectly.

Paul

 

[lionheart]

Thanks for reply. That's an interesting point re the most apparently suggestible pcs getting the most case gain. Case gain in terms of TA action, or some other measure? Alan posted a couple of months ago on the phenomenon of a pc blowing the TA up and down but not actually as-ising anything. That might apply here.

Someone familiar with auditing, and familiar with my Robot and Rub & Yawn procedure, could use it to address anything they wished. If one is following the procedure properly, though, the process being run would not be continued longer than a minute if nothing was physically discharging. That is my intended protection against a pc running an uncharged or flattened item for very long. I have addressed various whole-track items with it, and it works just fine, but only if the item is charged. The tacit C/S is to run whatever your attention is on most, but it is possible to run a session with an arbitrarily-C/S'd item as long as the ruds are in. Whether or not the item runs depends on whether it is charged and accessible to the pc at that point in time. For best case gain, I would go with running what the pc has attention on and wants to run, rather than some arbitrary search for juicy whole-track stuff. But if someone is wondering about something or other and wants to do a bit of research, well, go for it--I do! What I like about my Rub & Yawn procedure is that an untrained person can see if the topic is charged and discharging or not, so it keeps in the tech about not running uncharged items and running a process only until the point where change is coming off and no further.

I agree re the framework. I remember a few years ago running some pre-MEST incident in R3X and describing the scene in terms of a "template universe", and I had just been studying about templates in Microsoft Word and it all fitted together perfectly.

Paul

Isn't always the case in Scn that degree of case gain is proportional to suggestibility? To me that is obviously the case. But then, I also don't see suggestibility as a "bad" thing, it is just what it is. It is being open to receiving and taking on board ideas (ie suggestions). It is what the practitioner does with this trait that determines whether the action is "good" or "bad".

Ron used it to sign the person up to spend more money. Derren Brown uses it to entertain. An educator uses it to expand a person's knowledge or ability.

I suppose I'm using case gain to mean as measured by degree of "Wow" experienced by the PC, and also therefore by definition by TA Blowdown. I don't subscribe to the idea that driving the TA up for it to then BD necessarily implies case gain has been made. it could just mean that the PC bogged but somehow got out of it.

Also by case gain I mean the deeper running PCs ability to run the action faster. This for whatever reason was usually accompanied by an improving life and the other good indicators per the HCOB.

Yes, I was implying you tried running juicy w/track stuff yourself as "research" because you implied some regret at not having run it on R3R! :wink2:

I like your idea about checking for charged subjects. It seems to be an increasing technical view outside CofS to run what the PC's attention is on.

I believe this is a significant develpment that John Galusha and Mike Goldstein made.

Certainly I use it myself when release coaching people. I wouldn't dream of taking up something with them that they didn't originate as a want-to-handle. I suppose I am just a hopeless Q&Aing, squirrel SP! <irony>

The way I check for "charge" is different to yours. I also don't use a meter, but I remember what it felt like, as a PC, when the auditor did an assessment and then checked for interest in running "blah".

So I ask people to look for a sort of sizzle of excitement at the idea of running it. It is almost a physical feeling of energy buzzing up. It is combined with a slightly apprehensive, but excited and courageous feeling of "Yes! let's try".

For me this is a good test of something having "charge" and being runnable. but for me it is never something suggested or evaluated, it always has to be originated by the PC and is always addressed using their own exact words.

 

[Veda]

Hubbard actually told people what he was going to do to them - although in a disguised manner.

In 1963, Hubbard defined "Implant" as an "electronic means of overwhelming with a significance." He then proceeded to use electro-meters ("Your e-meter will tell you," etc.) and pervasive hype ("Your next endless agonized trillions of years," etc) to psychologically overwhelm with the significance of the vital to survival secret - very specifically worded - levels such as OT 2 and OT 3.

Hubbard became the Implanter. It was no longer subtle.

(And, yes, some people want to be told the contents of their own minds and their own spaces, and if they have an e-meter to play with while doing so - and can go wheee! - and perhaps even do some actual auditing here and there, to mix things up nicely - and then write a Success Story, then they're happy. So? And, by the way, the reference to 'Whee!' is not meant as a put down, but as a depiction of what happens, and it's built in to the Implantology experience.)

OT 2 contains general items, and also very specific details, dates and durations, and these specific details, dates and durations are what usually trap the person in the significance of OT2, just as is done with the trapping of the person in the significance of OT3. It's someone else's (and I don't mean BTs) significance that becomes their significance.

I wish people had an opportunity to (conveniently) review the actual contents of OT2 - not a watered down re-write - and then perhaps this aspect could be better appreciated.

The original advertised End Result of these levels was that the person was - essentially - one step away from OT. And by OT was meant, "A thetan himself without a body is capable of performing all the functions he assigns to the body," that is the "communication with and control of the MEST universe."

The proponents of these Implantology levels can insist that these "work," in which case that would mean that they - as "thetans" - have so little "thetan horsepower" that they can't do anything even vaguely resembling what was promised. All they can do is hope that people forget that that promise - of OT Powers - was what coaxed most people into being willing to open up there minds, to this mind-trick, in the first place. Then, over time, it became "the thing to do." And reason for doing OT2 or OT3 became to have done OT2 or OT3.

Whatever positive result might be obtained from such levels can be obtained other ways, without the mental-glue effect, without "overwhelming with a significance."

Most anything in Scientology has a trap aspect, or side, and that trap-side is not supposed to be noticed, even though it's there. It's an extension of the "LRH Intention" that Scientology not be fully known and not be fully understood. Probably the only "LRH Intention," senior to that, is that Scientology, as a personality cult, "Survive!" for a very long time.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=29401&postcount=8

 

[lionheart]

Hubbard actually told people what he was going to do to them - although in a disguised manner.

In 1963, Hubbard defined "Implant" as an "electronic means of overwhelming with a significance." He then proceeded to use electro-meters ("Your e-meter will tell you," etc.) and pervasive hype ("Your next endless agonized trillions of years," etc) to psychologically overwhelm with the significance of the vital to survival secret - very specifically worded - levels such as OT 2 and OT 3.

Hubbard became the Implanter. It was no longer subtle.

(And, yes, some people want to be told the contents of their own minds and their own spaces, and if they have an e-meter to play with while doing so - and can go wheee! - and perhaps even do some actual auditing here and there, to mix things up nicely - and then write a Success Story, then they're happy. So? And, by the way, the reference to 'Whee!' is not meant as a put down, but as a depiction of what happens, and it's built in to the Implantology experience.)

OT 2 contains general items, and also very specific details, dates and durations, and these specific details, dates and durations are what usually trap the person in the significance of OT2, just as is done with the trapping of the person in the significance of OT3. It's someone else's (and I don't mean BTs) significance that becomes their significance.

I wish people had an opportunity to (conveniently) review the actual contents of OT2 - not a watered down re-write - and then perhaps this aspect could be better appreciated.

The original advertised End Result of these levels was that the person was - essentially - one step away from OT. And by OT was meant, "A thetan himself without a body is capable of performing all the functions he assigns to the body," that is the "communication with and control of the MEST universe."

The proponents of these Implantology levels can insist that these "work," in which case that would mean that they - as "thetans" - have so little "thetan horsepower" that they can't do anything even vaguely resembling what was promised. All they can do is hope that people forget that that promise - of OT Powers - was what coaxed most people into being willing to open up there minds, to this mind-trick, in the first place. Then, over time, it became "the thing to do." And reason for doing OT2 or OT3 became to have done OT2 or OT3.

Whatever positive result might be obtained from such levels can be obtained other ways, without the mental-glue effect, without "overwhelming with a significance."

Most anything in Scientology has a trap aspect, or side, and that trap-side is not supposed to be noticed, even though it's there. It's an extension of the "LRH Intention" that Scientology not be fully known and not be fully understood. Probably the only "LRH Intention," senior to that, is that Scientology, as a personality cult, "Survive!" for a very long time.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=29401&postcount=8

So very true.

Veda, do you have access to the original OT2? Why not publish the materials?

Do you mean OT2 got watered down by the CofS or by the Freezone?

I must confess I got a little confused by the re-issues of OT levels, then the redesignating of rundowns after NOTs. I do remember the grade chart around 1970 when the old OT levels were on with the ability gained column filled in.

Hubbard's constant alteration and squirrelling of the levels became too confusing to me by the early 80s, I lost track of what level was what.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Do you mean OT2 got watered down by the CofS or by the Freezone?

Original II is available in the freezone along with some variants.

ICAUSE I know had a variation they were using at one time but have since recanted and now only use the original format.

RO's do advanced levels a bit "different". Not certain on the details but starts with their use of the II materials.

I must confess I got a little confused by the re-issues of OT levels, then the redesignating of rundowns after NOTs. I do remember the grade chart around 1970 when the old OT levels were on with the ability gained column filled in.
.

Original OT levels are also available in the freezone. BB posts wins on such from time to time.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Terril park]

RO's do advanced levels a bit "different". Not certain on the details but starts with their use of the II materials.

Mark A. Baker

RO's suggest doing the CC platens on OT 2 if
not a clearing course clear, Not sure if they insist on it. Anyway, I'd previously done OT 2&3 and was kean to do more OT 2 as OT 2 was my favorite bridge level. Then got to do another Run of OT 3. This latter is exactly the same as the " standard" bridge.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

On the higher levels beyond "Clear", Ron has created a pc who can "mock up" anything, including mocking up charge. It was very common to find clears and those close to it who could get LFBDs on mock-ups, protest, erasure by inspecton, anything really.

LRH even claimed that that is what his tech created - a pc who could mock up anything.

What he then did was suggest hitherto hidden and unknown sources of charge in the PreOT. Of course the PreOT can easily agree with this and mock up the charge and the LFBD.

Thus his suggestion/evaluation is "proved correct" by the e-meter which is being used as a truth detector". That was LRH's magic trick.

Isn't that the aim of OT 1 or 2; to be able to create and delete (sorry, mock-up and as-is) bank at will?

 

[lionheart]

Isn't that the aim of OT 1 or 2; to be able to create and delete (sorry, mock-up and as-is) bank at will?

But the trick, the switcheroo that Ron pulled on such beings was to tell them (as the powerful "source" figure of all the wonderful gains they had made on the levels up to the confidential levels) that there was a hidden, secret, dangerous cause for their lack of OT abilities.

He had selected out suggestible people from the lower levels so that only those able to create, destroy and believe were allowed onto the confidential levels.

So he had PCs who can mock up and erase at will, who are also open to new ideas, who are aware they do not have the promised OT "at cause" abilities. That is now their "ruin" so he repeated the lower level "successful" action and led them to an understanding of how their ruin can be handled with Scn OT levels.

Because they can mock up and unmock charge and case at will, he simply gave them some case to mock up! But the covert trick was that he didn't acknowledge that the PC was doing this himself. He implanted the suggestion that this mocked up case existed already and they simply had not been aware enough to spot it without Ron's help.

It was an implant, a forceful way of overwhelming a being with a significance. He even gave the victims a definition of what he was doing! The force used was invalidation and evaluation, desire for OT abilities, unknowness, hidden mysteries, etc. All are powerful forces.

Of course because he had made sure only those who could mock up charge were allowed to do the level, he knew the implant he was giving them would read on the meter because he knew they could mock up the charge!

It's just a magic trick! Give people an ability, make them look up to you as the source of the gift, tell them they are still ruined and get them to use their ability to ensure agreement as to the cause of their ruin.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Veda, do you have access to the original OT2? Why not publish the materials?

IANAV, but people still get into trouble very quickly with the CofS if they publish verbatim OT Level materials. The Prometheus Reports online are close enough for the theory, and use the exact wording for the platens for OT2 (and other advanced levels). The theory matches what I saw in the CofS when I sup'd the level in 1985. Around 1994 the theory in the CofS had a huge amount of irrelevant crap on GPMs added to it.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

ICAUSE I know had a variation they were using at one time but have since recanted and now only use the original format.

I wrote a detailed, scathing critique of Tommy's "Immortality Course Level 2" when I first saw it (2nd article at http://www.fzglobal.org/wotw040530-049999.htm). He dropped it about ten weeks later.

Paul

 

[Veda]

Well, that provides some sense of being "overwhelmed by a significance," preferably with a "Floating Tone Arm," but the actual Implants - dates, duration, descriptions, etc. - are the main significance, not any broad theory.

The broad theory is kind of in the middle. At one end are the minute details of each Implant, and at the other end is the hype of "your next endless agonized trillions," and off to one side slightly is the e-meter, which "will tell you."

And then, here and there, is some actual auditing of something real, and that's what "seals it."

 

[nozeno]

Digg it

http://io9.com/363755/the-science-vs-scientology-timeline

 

[nw2394]

But the trick...

I thought you were going to be nice LH. But now you write such rubbish.

The suggestible thing doesn't stand scrutiny - as we have already covered - but now you repeat your lies.

And you stand as an expert, having been convinced by Veda no doubt, as an expert on a level you haven't even done.

How many positive things does Veda ever say? And how many posts are a bunch of invective aimed at the poster or Hubbard?

Nick